elocal, Treatygate

TREATYGATE — Time to Expose the Con


This article is now running in elocal magazine, thanks to one of our country’s few courageous media owners, Mykeljon Winckel.

It explains the double-pronged campaign I’m planning to end the Treaty Grievance Industry.

Read it here, or double click the pic.

TREATYGATE

 Wake Up New Zealand, We’re Being Conned!

by John Ansell

Photo of yours truly in the church yard at Russell pointing to a headstone that neatly negates the latter day lie that Ngapuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty in 1840:

IN MEMORY OF
TAMATI WAKA NENE
CHIEF OF NGAPUHI
THE FIRST TO WELCOME
THE QUEEN’S SOVEREIGNTY
IN NEW ZEALAND

A friend asked me recently, “Do you think truth still matters in New Zealand?”

I froze.

I couldn’t give him the answer he wanted.

Because for too many members of the New Zealand elite,  certainly including state Treaty historians, the answer is no.

Evidence-based critical thinking is out. Ideology-based wishful thinking is in.

We have become the Land of the Long White Lie.

Telling the truth in New Zealand can get a stroppy copywriter into a power of trouble.

Last year I fumed to a reporter, no doubt after yet another holocaustic exaggeration by a neotribal extortionist demanding my water or flora or sky, that Maori had gone from the Stone Age to the Space Age in 150 years and had yet to say thanks.

For pointing out this irrefutable fact, I was roasted by Rosemary McLeod, disowned by Don Brash, and honoured by an anonymous brown supremacist with my very own Facebook page ‘John Ansell is a Racist F***wit’.

However, I was also contacted by a Maori friend, who gleefully trumpeted how clever his people had been to make such stellar progress, and, in the absence of my forebears, thanked me most profusely.

These two opposite reactions caused me to divide Maori into two broad groups, which I call Achievers and Grievers.

The Achievers I admire very much, especially those who – sadly – feel they have to escape to Australia to live the lives of equal New Zealanders.

But the Grievers I can’t abide.

They clearly descend from the ethically-flexible rebel minority who breached the Treaty in the wars of the nineteenth century, and their inflated sense of entitlement has been costing the rest of us dearly.

It is a charming but potentially fatal flaw of New Zealanders that we want to be nice to people at all costs.

Unfortunately there is a fine line between niceness and cowardice.

Being nice to Griever Maori can be very costly indeed – especially when the iwi elite are aided and abetted in their extortion attempts by all the other elites– the political, bureaucratic, academic, judicial, legal, and media.

The approach of successive governments since the early seventies can be summed up by a word most commonly associated with the late thirties: appeasement.

Consider the Evidence

  • We’ve had prime ministers inventing Treaty principles out of thin air, forging unnecessary alliances with Maori separatists, and surrendering our beaches so they can be handed to iwi in secret by their very own tame minister.
  • We’ve had a corrupt Waitangi Tribunal refusing to pay researchers whose findings do not support their racist fantasy, and a Race Relations Commissioner who instructs councils to create special seats for one race only.
  • We’ve had historians hushing up the 1989 discovery of the final English draft of the Treaty when they realised that Hobson included “all the people of New Zealand”, not just Maori.
  • We’ve had activist judges pretending that this 1840 sovereignty-for-protection deal was an equal partnership between the world’s then-greatest empire and dozens of warring stone age tribes that the British had saved from cannibalism, slavery and extinction.
  • We’ve had battalions of lawyers making fortunes from bogus claims, with one of those lawyers now the minister in charge of rubber stamping those claims. [This sentence was left out of the article for some reason – possibly legal.]
  • And we’ve had an editor of a major daily who refused to run an entirely factual election ad asking if you’re fed up with pandering to Maori radicals, yet was happy to cite free speech in defending a cartoon that compared welfare minister Paula Bennett with Nazi death camp doctor Josef Mengele.

On second thoughts, appeasement is too wimpish a word for such a sustained and orchestrated con.

The only word that cuts the mustard is TREATYGATE.

The elite’s methodology is clear…

The Treatygate Con

  1. Get state academics to rewrite New Zealand history as a fantasy novel, where the Maoris are the goodies and the British the baddies.
  2. Get state schools and universities to indoctrinate New Zealanders with this fake history.
  3. Get the bogus historians to slam past historians as unreliable (even those who witnessed the actual events or interviewed those who were there).
  4. Get the state media to peddle the fake history to stoke Maori grievance and Pakeha guilt.
  5. Get iwi to fake claims to right fake wrongs.
  6. Set up a state tribunal to hear these fake Maori claims.
  7. Pay senior lawyers to represent Maori, and junior lawyers to represent the Crown.
  8. Give the tribunal sole  power to interpret the Treaty.
  9. Let the tribunal approve claims based on pure hearsay.
  10. Make all Treaty-related documents as hard to find, and hard to read, as possible.
  11. Brand as ‘racist’ anyone who questions any Maori entitlement.
  12. If enough people object, threaten a race war.
  13. To continue the resource grab indefinitely, entrench a Treaty-based, Bolivian-style constitution where indigenous people are more equal than others.
  14. Pretend that Maori are indigenous to New Zealand, when they sailed here just before the Europeans, and suppress the mounting evidence that other races got here first.
  15. Pretend at all times that Maori remain a separate race, even though they’re all now part-Pakeha.

For the last year I’ve been studying Crown-Maori history intensively with the help of nine authors who have written more than thirty books on the subject.

The scale of the Treatygate fraud is massive and reaches into every agency of the New Zealand state.

But What Can We Do?

It will take money, but I believe the secret of success is a powerful public education campaign using the plainest of English, rolling out one fascinating fact, one ad or poster at a time.

The goal is to get sheepish Kiwis, ‘the Passionless People’, to understand what has been done to them, and to tell their politicians, “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more!”

If we can make Treatygate a Top Three issue when the big parties do their polling, then our leaders will have no choice but to listen and act.

Here’s the plan…

How to Defeat the Con

  1. Launch Colourblind New Zealand, and set a goal to lock in one law for all by December 2014.
  2. Raise a $2 million fighting fund so the politicians know we’re able to embarrass them.
  3. Petition for a referendum at the 2014 election. Question: “Do you want New Zealand to be a Colourblind State, with one law for all, and no racial favouritism of any kind?”
  4. How to make the PM obey the referendum result? Run lots of bold Treatygate ads telling voters just who has been conning them, and how.
  5. If media refuse to run these ads, use rival media to expose them as part of the con.
  6. Bombard government MPs with instructions from their voters to obey their will.
  7. Support local body campaigns on Maori wards (typically attracting an 80% NO vote).

With your support I hope to work full-time on this project until New Zealand is a Colourblind State.

The racially-rigged Constitutional Advisory Panel has already begun the process of changing the constitution by stealth, meeting mainly with Maori groups in contravention of its pledge to meet a wide range of New Zealanders.

So there’s not a moment to lose.

Because truth does matter.

If you’d like to help and/or donate to this campaign to free NewZealand from this perverse reverse apartheid, please email me at john@johnansell.co.nz.

This is not a religious or political party-driven campaign.

I simply want the government to give us the racial equality that the Treaty promised.

Photo caption:

John Ansell calls himself a ‘conviction copywriter’, who hates selfish politicians, and is known for distilling political concepts into the plainest of English.

He created the ‘Iwi/Kiwi’ billboard series for National in 2005, two award-winning radio campaigns for Labour in 1987 and 1993, and in 2011 fell out with ACT over his proposed press headline ‘Fed up with the Maorification of Everything?’

He sees the racially-rigged National-Maori Constitutional Review as a major threat to our country and has founded Colourblind New Zealand to see if a referendum, reinforced by a hard-hitting public education campaign, can succeed where politicians have failed to halt the appeasement of Griever Maori.

EDITOR’S NOTE:

The latest water rights issue where Maori are simply extorting ‘free’ shares from asset sales under the artificial privileged race umbrella is nothing short of racial abuse.

To quote Muriel Newman’s NZCPR:

“Another myth perpetrated by tribal leaders is that the first settlers ‘owned’ the whole country. This is totally illogical and a complete fabrication.

“New Zealand’s small population did not ‘own’ the whole country. In the days before private property rights were established by the rule of law, people ‘owned’ what they could defend.

“Common areas like mountains and wilderness areas, the foreshore and seabed, rivers and lakes, were not ‘owned’ by anyone but were used by all.

“The same goes for resources — minerals, the sea, the air, our water, wild animals and plants, and other common goods.”

When John Ansell approached elocal with Treatygate, I decided to run his story on the basis that Maori continue to have a privileged NZ media platform to expound their radical views and it’s time the NZ race have their say.

I invite our readers to have their comment. Blog on www.elocal.co.nz.

_____________________________________________

CLOSING GROVEL

My planned ad campaign will not happen unless a whole lot of Kiwis like you are prepared to dig deep to save your country.

If a lot of us give a little, and a few give a lot, we can stop the professional grievers and their ‘useful idiot’ appeasers in their tracks.

Please give whatever you can afford, and send this link to everyone you know.

714 thoughts on “TREATYGATE — Time to Expose the Con

  1. Many of us would like to know that – very much!!. I personally would also like to know why the Littlewood copy hasn’t superseded it in legislation if they must have an English version there. Governments certainly know about it and it IS dated one day later than the Freeman version so is obviously more up to date.

    However, the Maori one is the correct one so why aren’t they going by that one? Anyone who can’t speak Maori only has to look at the Littlewood one because it more or less mirrors the Maori version and the latter was actually translated from it.

  2. Simple Simon states:

    ‘English draft; Freeman composite; Other drafts; Any other composites or scribblings . . .

    It appears that they have no true legitimacy. They are irrelevant.’

    Yes, you’re absolutely correct!

    They have some interesting historical value, but in a legislative sense SHOULD BE deemed irrelevant.

    Lieutenant Governor William Hobson recognised that there is only one legal Treaty of Waitangi text – and it is in the Maori language.

    This singular recognition was affirmed by Hobson in his letter of instructions to Major Bunbury.

    He wrote:

    ‘The treaty, which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi, on the 6th February, 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the Confederation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence.

    This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of the original document’

    (see: The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pg. 162).

    On the 17th of February 1840 the C.M.S. Mission press produced 200 copies of the Maori language treaty, as a paid consignment ordered by Hobson.

    There was no production of an official English treaty text, as there wasn’t one.

    Subsequently, all of the large, handwritten copies of the Treaty of Waitangi, commissioned and produced by the government, then “Officially” sent to the treaty signing assemblies around New Zealand, were in the Maori language.

    There were no departures from this strict practice.

    Treaty consultant Brian Easton noted:

    ‘For further evidence of the low status of the various English versions after the signing of the Tiriti, consider the numerous translations made in the 1840s by those involved in land deals around Auckland…

    If everyone was translating the Tiriti, then they are implying the official version in English was non-existent, unimportant, or irrelevant.

    In the 1840s the general view among settlers seems to have been there was no Treaty of Waitangi, but there was Te Tiriti o Waitangi which had to be translated into English.

    See: Archifacts by Brian Easton, April 1997, p. 21-49).

    Due to the loss of the Final English Draft “sometime in February 1840” (this is the view of our historians, but we now know it “went missing” in March 1840), the New Zealand Government made an “official” request to the Native Department for a “back-translation” of Te Tiriti o Waitangi into English.

    This was “officially” supplied.

    In lieu of the authentic Final English Draft, that official back-translation of 1869 would have served all of our future needs admirably and without question forevermore.

    However, the activists and social-engineers of 1975 didn’t want that particular English text, as it provided no leeway for fudging the treaty and its meaning.

    This deceitful mob managed to dupe the legislators into having a FORMAL ROYAL STYLE COMPOSITE brought in to sit alongside Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and be co-equal to it in the drafting of our laws.

    Actually, this interloper text supplanted Te Tiriti o Waitangi from that point onwards.

    The large difference in wording between the two texts left plenty of leeway for guile-spouting lawyers to muddy the waters and totally confuse the formerly clear meaning of the treaty, then reinvent the treaty to suit corporate-iwi and international big business needs.

    Follow the money!

    The 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, which was later amended to incorporate Geoffrey Palmer’s totally indefinable “Principles” says the following in its Preamble:

    Whereas on 6 February 1840 a Treaty was entered into at Waitangi between Her late Majesty Queen Victoria and the Maori people of New Zealand:

    And whereas the TEXT OF THE TREATY IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE DIFFERS FROM THE TEXT OF THE TREATY IN THE MAORI LANGUAGE;

    And whereas it is desirable that a Tribunal be established to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles of the Treaty and, for that purpose, to determine its meaning and effect and whether certain matters are inconsistent with those principles.’

    Of course we know that the text of the Final English Draft, from which Te Tiriti was translated, did not “differ” at all from the Maori translation.

    Reverend Henry Williams and his son Edward did an excellent job of translation. One text complemented the other very well.

    But that was it. The die was cast.

    So, it was a deliberate ruse of “Kiss your true treaty goodbye and let the helter-skelter exploitation and resource-plunder of New Zealand society begin.”

    A veritable shark-feeding-frenzy ensued.

  3. I want to pay tribute to Martin Doutre, the Lydia Ko of New Zealand historians (supposedly an amateur, but with a habit of running rings around the most seasoned pros).

    Some academics are stupid enough to believe that other academics with Dame before their names and PhD after them have more integrity than honest toilers whose only honour is found in unearthing the truth.

    Why a liar should consider himself superior because he’s been brainwashed, and given a degree, by another liar is beyond me.

    Unable to defeat Martin on the evidence, these people have submitted him to the most poisonous campaign of character assassination over many years.

    And yet here he is on this thread rising to the challenge of going head to head on the evidence, and so comprehensively taking them to the cleaners that it was like taking candy from a baby.

    They seem to have all run away now, but if they pop back we can be sure it will be to divert or denigrate, not to engage or enlighten.

    So Martin, thank you – as I suspected you would, you’ve won the ‘debate’ hands down.

    And what a wonderful analogy (at 8.29am) to compare the process of writing the Treaty drafts to the process of writing a school essay.

    That’s why you leave the dopey doctors in your dust – you not only have a breadth of knowledge that boggles the mind, but you also put it across with such style.

    Thank you, and others like Ross Baker and Mike Butler, for doing the hard yards for so many years.

    I hope we Johnny-come-latelies can now play our part and see New Zealand become a Colourblind State.

    If so, it will be our tribute to your efforts.

  4. Well said, John!

    Martin Doutre, Ross Baker, and Mike Butler I am one New Zealander who would dearly like to thank you for the incredible analysis and hard work you have put into salvaging the details of our country’s history.

    Without your undying commitment, New Zealanders would be forced to swallow what we are fed by our orthodox historians without anything to challenge their word on.

    Thank you for giving myself another side of the story which I can hand onto my children so their generation can challenge history aswell.

    This campaign will see that all your work has not been for nothing.

    You deserve recognition whether you are too proud to accept it or not.

  5. John and Trina,

    Many thanks for your very supportive comments.

    The truth is certainly out there … in anomalous stone structures, mounds and excavations, etc., scattered across our landscape or buried deep in our old history books and records.

    If New Zealanders are ever going to learn the truth, they’re going to have to extract it themselves, with no hope whatsoever of any help from our mainstream archaeologists or historians (with few exceptions).

    Our entrenched, stifled or politically-aligned academic community remain the largest part of the problem and show no signs of ever being a part of the solution.

  6. I have one question – if the truth is out there , then surely you can prove it Martin. I would have thought that the amount of time you have taken, you would have had irrefutable proof. Shouldnt you be standing on a world stage, a piece of bone in one hand, the results of DNA and carbon dating in the other. The whole world applauding the irrefutable proof. Never mind the conspiracy theories ….According to what I have read, the whole world is involved in this huge conspiracy hiding the evidence…Surely if the evidence is hidden, then you have none. If you have none, then all you have is a cute story. Or is that being too simplistic?

  7. Thanks Giovanni, he is actually looking for aliens i think. Have you read the fascinating article on “for muslim read Maori”?

  8. Notice, readers, how Dr Tiso is responding exactly as predicted.

    Do the doctors have nothing to say except invoke the deity and scoff?

    Anakereiti: Is there any proof that you or the doctors would accept, I wonder? That’s the question readers will be asking.

    I don’t know whether Martin’s evidence amounts to absolute proof that other people were here before Maori.

    But I do know that Maori (and those who speak for them) have not shown us any proof that they were here before other people.

    Do you accept the doctors’ assertion that we should just believe that they were, because other academics told them so, and we must always believe academics?

  9. What evidence does Martin actually have? There is no evidence at all of “other” people, which in itself says that Maori were here first. If there is no evidence of other people then that is all the proof required, isnt it? So Maori have shown you proof of being here first, because there is no “evidence” to refute that. Never mind the conspiracy theories, if he doesnt have the actual proof to refute it, then it stands, as Maori here first.

    Thats not rocket science –

  10. So much has happened here today but before I say anything, I too would like to join the others in thanking and praising Martin. I have read a lot of the information he has produced and have to say it’s amazing what he has uncovered but not been allowed to investigate properly.

    I always question things first and take some convincing but Martin convinced me long ago.

    As for other people being here first, other posts have already explained that even Maori long ago admitted such a thing – redheaded, blue eyes, light skinned people. It was also mentioned in writings of the mariners long long ago. As well as all the stone structures, mounds etc.

    I don’t doubt it for an instant. I just hope Martin gets proper recognition in his lifetime. It’s an utter disgrace how those who don’t want to know the true facts, denigrate him at every turn.

    You are first-class, Martin.

  11. Anakereiti: What is “not rocket science” is your “see no evidence, hear no evidence” approach to this whole investigation.

    Martin has responded exhaustively to the call to back his claims.

    As he always does.

    And you and the joke doctors have responded with “he’s got no evidence”.

    As you, and they, always do.

    It wouldn’t matter if a whole lost tribe of giant Celts walked out of the Waipoua Forest tomorrow, you lot would say they were the Irish basketball team.

    You were the one who said all the women and girls at Parihaka were raped, remember?

    You are the one with the history of exaggeration.

    Martin Doutre is the one who responds to every challenge with reams of facts, which you and yours do not even seem to see, let alone have the decency to acknowledge, let alone refute.

    I’m not really talking to you and yours, anyway.

    I’m talking to readers who are genuinely curious to know what’s what.

    I’m talking to people with open minds.

    I’ve never met Martin Doutre, and if he’s lying I’ll be the first to condemn him for wasting my time.

    But from everything I’ve seen of his so far, I’ve mighty impressed with the way he responds to his attackers.

    I can see why they regard him as such a threat, and want to shut him down with ridicule.

    I’m picking the neutrals will be impressed by him too, and most unimpressed with you.

    As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

  12. As for other people being here first, other posts have already explained that even Maori long ago admitted such a thing – redheaded, blue eyes, light skinned people. It was also mentioned in writings of the mariners long long ago. As well as all the stone structures, mounds etc.

    @Helen – what writings are these Helen? Stone structures? which ones are those , Helen, that have been proven, with scientific research, and archaeological evidence – to have been put here by someone other than Maori?

  13. John, i can respond exhaustively too – but until Martin is standing on a world stage, with a bone, dug up in front of bona fide witnesses, that has been carbon dated, and DNA proving it to be of caucasian descent – then what has he got? Nothing – he has a whole lot of theories, which he backs up with nothing, other than more theories. Thats it. Anyone with an over active imagination, could probably do the same. The proof is in the pudding John, and Martin doesnt appear to have the pudding.

  14. Anakereiti states:

    ‘I have one question – if the truth is out there , then surely you can prove it Martin. I would have thought that the amount of time you have taken, you would have had irrefutable proof. Shouldnt you be standing on a world stage, a piece of bone in one hand, the results of DNA and carbon dating in the other.’

    And I would have thought that you, Anakereiti, being Maori, would be at least marginally conversant with the oral traditions of your iwi, whatever it is, and with the many recorded statements by learned Maori all over the country about the “uru-kehu, kiri-puwhero” people who were here before Maori.

    I would suggest you approach the old elders on this matter.

    If you’re respectful enough and if they consider you worth talking to, they’ll undoubtedly tell you the same thing I’m telling you about the Patu-paiarehe and Turehu.

    The elders, nowadays, don’t seem to understand the surveying-related attributes of many of the purpose-placed stones, or how the many solar observatories work

    But why should they, as these are remnant structures of the earlier people?

    The Maori elders throughout many districts do know very well that certain of the obelisks were once of great importance, and still venerate them, even giving them sacred names, but the rest of the knowledge about them is lost in the mists of time.

    Depending on function, a precise survey of the exact position of these purpose-placed structures, in relation to a dynamic geological feature of the distant skyline, will positively divulge the reason the structure was erected at that precise position.

    But according to Anakereiti, who knows everything, paramount chief Mohi Tawhai of Mahuehure and his son chief Hone Mohi Tawhai were liars.

    And, by consequence, half-Maori Reverend John Grace of Tuwharetoa was also an abject liar when he wrote:

    ‘Generally speaking, Ngati Hotu were of medium height and of light colouring. In the majority of cases they had reddish hair.

    They were referred to as urukehu. It is said that during the early stages of their occupation of Taupo they did not practice tattooing as later generations did, and were spoken of as te whanau a rangi because of their fair skin.

    There were two distinct types. One had a kiri wherowhero or reddish skin, a round face, small eyes and thick protruding eyebrows.

    The other was fair-skinned, much smaller in stature, with larger and very handsome features.

    The latter were the true urukehu and te whanau a rangi. In some cases not only did they have reddish hair, but also light coloured eyes.’

    (See Tuwharetoa, chapter 7, page 115, by Rev. John Grace).

    Or historian-anthropologist Elsdon Best, who lived amongst Maori for over 20-years, and achieved the title of Tohunga, was, apparently, a liar when he wrote:

    ‘The Maori regales us with several tales that are supposed to illustrate a period when the Maori people were living here on sufferance, as it were, under the mana of the Turehu or Patu-paiarehe, the true lords of the soil.

    Many different names are used to denote this forest folk or fairies as our writers often term them, though the Maori concept is not that of a diminutive fey or elf like folk, but rather that of a people of ordinary stature and appearance, save they are said to have been fair-skinned and fair haired’

    (See Maori Religion by Elsdon Best).

    Or historian, James Cowan, according to Anakereiti, must have lied through his teeth in relaying the accounts from elders he interviewed in the Rotorua District, wherein they said:

    ‘Patu-paiarehe is the name applied by the Maoris to the mysterious forest dwelling race.

    An atmosphere of mysticism surrounds Maori references to these elusive tribes of the mountains and the bush …

    The Patu-paiarehe were for the most part of much lighter complexion than the Maoris … their hair was of a dull golden or reddish hue, “uru-kehu”, as is sometimes seen amongst the Maoris of today …

    This class of folk-tales no doubt originated in part in the actual existence of numerous tribes of aborigines.

    This immeasurably ancient light haired people left a strain of uru-kehu in most ancient tribes’

    (See The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 1921, volume 30, pp. 96-102, 142-151, article by James Cowan.)

    Commenting on a later era, Cowan interviewed an old Maori elder who spoke of the Patu-paiarehe of Mt. Ngongataha, Rotorua District.

    This partially wooded area rising above the south-west shore of Lake Rotorua was the main regional settlement of the Patu-paiarehe, whom the old elder called, Ngati-Hua [hua means “bastard” in Maori].

    The old elder described the former residents in the following way:

    ‘The complexion of most of them was kiri puwhero (reddish skin) and their hair had a reddish or golden tinge we call uru-kehu.

    Some had black eyes, some blue like Europeans. Some of their women were very beautiful, very fair of complexion, with shining fair hair…’

    Cowan was told by other Maori elders of the district that

    ‘many generations previously, the Maoris set fire to the fern and forest on the slopes of the mountain, causing much anguish to the Patu-paiarehe tribe and most of them departed northward.’

    Then of course there are many living “uru-kehu, kiri-puwhero”, people like Monica Matamua that you are accusing of lying.

    Her whakapapa shows a clear lineage back through Ngati Hotu and her family have been campaigning for generations for recognition of their unique, pre-Maori, tangata-whenua bloodline and status.

    I grew up knowing many such people and it seems inconceivable to me that there would be any or many, advanced-age, Maori elders today who don’t know about the “uru-kehu, kiri-puwhero”, pre-Maori people, as this history was openly shared, common knowledge up until a generation of two ago.

    But obviously, for you Anakereiti, none of this is politically-convenient, so you’re determined to bludgeon the rest of us into dutifully accepting your self-serving, grievance-industry version of tailor-made, Marxist-modified history.

    So, what’s your driving motive and agenda Anakereiti?

  15. And so when the DNA was tested Martin – it came back to caucasian? It came back to a race other than Maori?

    Martin my koro used to hold a wee piece of bone on a flax, over my belly and depending on which way it turned he would then say – your having a girl or your having a boy – I took that with a grain of salt – because he is my koro and it made him happy to say that he knew. When he was proven wrong on both occasions , he then gave me the reasons why he had got it wrong…..Doesnt mean he was lying, he knew what he knew but he was still wrong.

    No point in getting angry with me, that I would prefer you to be standing in front of me, with something tangible, and a copy of some carbon dating or DNA.

    And your bullying on the matter doesnt change the fact that you have no evidence. I would suggest maybe your the person trying to bludgeon me.

    Do you know the story of the hobbiars and little dog tobey? My irish grandmother would swear they existed…maybe they did, maybe they didnt, scarey story, but the only way i would believe that was if she had a corpse of the hobbiar, with some actual evidence attached. Doesnt make me wrong, doesnt make her right.

  16. Anakereiti: you have just given two examples of family members who used to tell you things that weren’t true.

    You yourself have told us things that weren’t true.

    See the pattern?

    I wouldn’t go throwing stones at Martin.

    I don’t think you even read what he writes.

  17. Whose throwing stones at Martin, John? Saying that he hasnt provided any evidence or any that persuades me otherwise, surely cant be construed as an insult? Did your parents ever allude to the fact that Father Xmas was real John? Did you ever look out the window at a star, that your dad told you was Santa’s sleigh? Did you put your tooth under your pillow for the tooth fairy? Did you find out in the morning that it had been swapped for money – just 2 examples where family members tell you things that arent true. Does it make them liars John?

  18. Giovanni writes:

    “Marxist modified history” = “I still have no evidence”.

    That’s certainly what it would mean to you, under your self-assumed title of a “pre-post Marxist”, which conceivably means a “fully-fledged Marxist”.

    Within the general Marxist modus-operandi, history has to serve the needs of the political organs and is suitably modified accordingly to be used as a political-weapon.

    Since the mid-70s onwards, New Zealanders have been inundated with this very limited, politically-expedient kind of Marxist pseudo-scholarship, with droves of academics just going with the flow and withdrawing their protection from the rank-and-file, who foolishly put their faith in these moral-coward, educated-idiots.

    I readily accept that no amount of true, documented or physical evidence that I or others produce on historical or archaeological matters, etc, will ever be acceptable to you or your ilk of social-engineers.

    As for your hounding of John Ansell, he knows full-well that he can find everything that’s in my book and much more online at:
    http://www.celticnz.co.nz/articles.html

    However, he’s preoccupied with far more pressing issues at the moment, like restoring some truth and sanity to our beleaguered society.

  19. They have a closed mind-set, Martin. We will never get through to them. They don’t want to know anything but their indoctrinated beliefs.

  20. Anakereiti, if you’re talking about children’s fairy tales, then fair enough. I apologise.

    As far as Martin goes, do think it would hurt to acknowledge the enormous time and energy he is putting into backing up every single claim he makes?

    No, it seems that you’re not even prepared to read his comments, let alone thank him for taking the trouble.

    You just parrot the party line “no evidence, no evidence, ark ark!”

    I think the rest of us here can see that Martin is providing plenty of evidence.

    And he’s the only one who is.

  21. My goodness this is going on somewhat. I propose the opening of the North Head caves to the public after.exhuming Serviceman RJ Scott from his unmarked grave in the far north then retreiving Boeing one, Boer War artifacts etc then allowing UNBIASED EXPERTS of repute to fully Investigate the Turehu Petroglyphs and SKELETONS, end of story, problem solved. One question that should be asked at this time should be what constitutes HIGH TREASON and of course the penalty for it. PEACE, out.

  22. Even easier Monica matamua would really like full DNA testing. Martin could assist her in that quest. Then he would have conclusive proof of whether she comes from Maori or pre Maori. End of story. That would shut the doubters up martin

  23. Ironsides said:

    ‘One question that should be asked at this time should be what constitutes HIGH TREASON and of course the penalty for it.’

    Doesn’t it seem a little coincidental that Geoffrey Palmer abolished the death penalty for TREASON within 4-months of becoming PRIME MINISTER OF NEW ZEALAND?

    It was abolished on the 26th of December 1989 … that’s right folks … the day after Xmas !

    When politicians are desperately trying to sneak stuff past the public, they always do it right on Xmas when no-one is looking.

  24. On September 19, 2012 at 8:03 am anakereiti said:
    “Even easier Monica matamua would really like full DNA testing. Martin could assist her in that quest. Then he would have conclusive proof of whether she comes from Maori or pre Maori. End of story. That would shut the doubters up martin”

    This would not provide anything conclusive either, anakereiti.

    If we had DNA of the bones that have been found, and they are of Monica’s known tribe (i.e an ancestor) we may have something to work with, but I question if Monicas DNA will tell us if Monica is Maori or Pre Maori by itself.

    DNA tells you which continent your ancient ancestors came from – it does not tell you what race they were.

    The following Youtube video will help you understand it better.

    Basically DNA tells us that we are that mixed up through interbreeding over the thousands of years there are no ‘pure’ blood lines anymore.

    You have touched on quite a complex topic, anakereiti, but a very relevant one 🙂

  25. I understand DNA Trina, Maori DNA can be traced from various continents including Taiwan.
    If monica’s DNA tells a different tale – and i think one suggestion was that her ancestors had originated in Iran, that is quite different DNA from Maori. That would then suggest her iwi came from a completely different line, and would also suggest that they didnt travel with Maori in the great migration.
    Or that would be my understanding of it 🙂

  26. I understand what your saying, but with out the DNA sample of the bones which are thought to be pre-maori we have not got a sample as a reference to compare Monica’s DNA to, to narrow down the conclusions of the result.

    Where can I find the study on Maori DNA because it is a very interesting topic.

  27. I placed a basic comment on Alexander Gillespies article (Herald online on the John Banks fiasco last night 20/9/12 and what should be done to keep Public Servants in line.

    My comment simply asked if the penalty for Treason should be re- thought and reverted back to it’s original penalty before it was changed by G Palmer the day after Christmas 1989. At 8:45am on the 21/9/12 it was still not posted, bugger!

    I hope it is due to a very busy workload and that no further Red Eye Patches need to be issued.

    Wishing you all a great day my friends and a much better day tomorrow.

    Bring on the Paradigm Shift that is very much needed I say.

  28. We Will Remember Them: Did the Herald ever post your comment?

    Their Maori Affairs reporter Yvonne Tahana may well be influencing their coverage of this issue, and she is certainly one-eyed.

    A lot of people tell me the Herald refuse letters that other papers would publish.

    I’d be interested to hear readers’ views on the impartiality of New Zealand’s biggest daily.

    1. I have submitted several letters, articles and press releases to the NZ Herald without success. Here is one submitted to the “Dialogue” section and rejected by David Hastings on March 26 this year:

      Headline: Government stays quiet on historical redress total

      Treaty of Waitangi top-up clauses in Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu settlements could be triggered this year, a government spokesman confirmed this week, although the Office of Treaty Settlements said that information on the total value of settlements under the relativity mechanism would not be released “at this time”.

      Both Ngai Tahu and Waikato-Tainui negotiated relativity clauses, of the sort that used to characterise union wage negotiations, as part of their original settlements, entitling each iwi to a percentage of all future treaty settlements once they exceeded $1-billion in 1994 dollar terms.

      News reports indicate that for the first time, the Government has acknowledged that amount could be reached this year, which would entitle Ngai Tahu to 16.1 percent and Waikato-Tainui 17 percent of all future treaty settlements.

      Ngai Tahu chairman Mark Solomon said that he expected that the mechanism would possibly be triggered “this year, or next year at the latest.” A spokesman for Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson said the clause was not triggered at the end of the 2010-11 financial year, “but it is possible the mechanism will be triggered this year”, while noting that Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu would be advised first.

      Last October, I asked the Office of Treaty Settlements under the Official Information Act whether any payments had been made under the relativity mechanism to finally receive a reply on Thursday, the day the Otago Daily Times published the relativity trigger report, which confirmed no such payments had been made and said no information would be released on the total value of settlements.

      An Office of Treaty Settlements report from February 2010 put the total settlement redress at $958,289,025, which was under the threshold, and included a helpful breakdown of 28 settlements to that date with an amount for each. (2) A check on their report from March 2011 (3) showed no total and no corresponding table, which indicated at that stage that the office had gone coy on the total redress paid to that date.

      Total financial redress paid to date, according to summaries posted on the Office of Treaty Settlements website, is $1.355-billion. A further 16 settlements worth a total of $375.85-million are currently going through parliament. Once legislation has passed, the total would reach $1.73-billion.

      The Reserve Bank inflation calculator reveals that $1-billion in 1994 dollars equates to $1.5269-billion today. Therefore, the total financial redress paid once the 16 settlements in parliament are passed into law would be $1.73-billion, or about $203-million over the level that triggers the relativity mechanism for Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu.. The 17 percent relativity figure would give $34.5-million to Waikato-Tainui and 16.1 percent would give $32.7-million to Ngai Tahu, if I am interpreting this correctly.

      Both tribes negotiated relativity top-ups into their settlements, so more fool the National Party government of the day in agreeing to it, especially when both tribes had accepted earlier full and final settlements.

      The Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Claims Settlement Act 1946, passed on October 7, 1946, was a final settlement of grievances over the confiscation of Maori lands in the Waikato and provided for the establishment of the Tainui Maori Trust Board to receive ₤5000 a year in perpetuity plus a further ₤5000 and £1000 a year for 45 years. That preceded a further final settlement of $170-million in 1995.

      The Ngai Tahu Claim Settlement Act 1944 awarded ₤300,000, payable at a rate of ₤10,000 a year for 30 years. Annual payment increased to £20,000 sometime in the late 1960s, and changed to an in-perpetuity payment in 1973. A further final settlement of $170-million was agreed in 1998.

      And what was the Ngai Tahu grievance? A handful of Ngai Tahu chiefs (there were probably fewer than 3000 members of that tribe at the time) sold most of the South Island in the mid 19th century in 10 deals for a total of ₤14,750, which would be the equivalent of about one year’s pay for 164 people. The chiefs leased out their reserves rather than working them, and once the proceeds of the sales had been spent, started complaining about not having enough land.

      With four further settlements awaiting tribal ratification, 16 agreed but at the detailed negotiations stage, a further 15 under negotiation, and a number of others yet to be negotiated, Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu both have a few more substantial pay days to look forward to. I wonder what the other tribes think of that. And I wonder what the thoughts are of everyone else for whom $22-million dollars in Powerball is far more than they could imagine.

  29. Hi John, I got tired of waiting for it to appear yet I noticed the article may have dissapeared a lot earlier than some 😦 . S.N.A.F.U ?

  30. Yes, I know Yvonne Tahana is keen to suppress the truth about Ngai Tahu. Disgraceful if her editor is complaint in the deception.

    Feel free, anyone, to publish your rejected letters here!

    By the way: this comments thread is longer than any the legendary David Farrar has spawned in the long history of Kiwiblog, bar one.

    Well done – keep going!

  31. Tangata Whenua = all born New Zealanders

    There, in one simple sentence I’ve solved the whole thing.
    Apply that to all treaty legislation/provisions/principles or whatever you want to call them, and you will come out with a colourblind result.
    Might I suggest you call your political party
    The Tangata Whenua party.

  32. Unfortunately the lowest social strata are never going to see any of this Treaty gravy spill their way, it is mopped up quickly by the elite. Maori still have shocking statistics in crime, violence, imprisonment etc etc and you can only blame others for your own mistakes for so long. How often do we see hungry Maori children going to school to be fed by European Kiwi teachers, where did all that Treaty money go? None of my Maori work mates have seen anything to improve the lives of their Iwi or Whanau, it’s a big fat con and they all know it. More strength to you John and the mainstream working Maori who will never get a sniff of any “free” money from bogus claims and only want what the average Kiwi wants in life.

  33. John, thank you for your invitation to Monday’s meeting; I regret I am out of Auckland next week.

    On the matter of Waitangi I believe the treaty itself is unlawful.

    You cannot make a law requiring the sun to rise in the west as it is impossible to implement. Where unworkable = unlawful, any such law would be unlawful.

    The Treaty of Waitangi, as written, is incoherent, contradicts itself & its intent cannot be discerned. Any contract whose intent cannot be discerned, is unlawful.

    Dual sovereignty does not work; unworkable = unlawful.

    Apartheid, at least when determined by race, does not work; unworkable = unlawful.

    Imposing a minority religion on a majority who do not subscribe to that religion is unworkable, thus unlawful.

    While people say honor the Treaty; you cannot honor the unworkable; your every attempt to do so merely changes the form in which it is dishonored.

    The Treaty of Waitangi will never be honored. The country can only endlessly damage & diminish itself in its every endeavor to honor the unworkable.

    It is my clear opinion the Treaty has no legal or moral basis on which it can stand.

    Injustice did occur in the past, Indigenous & western civilization operated to totally different agenda’s, it was inevitable they would clash. There were some sorry & ugly wrongs done; yet what it the revisionists alternative? That we should have deferred the development of modern civilization, until some ~fairy dust~ nice way to do it was found.

    John, I wish you well with your meeting; I regret it is possibly too little too late. The NZ establishment have invested so much in Waitangi they have painted themselves into a corner; I doubt they have an exit strategy. Waitangi seems like Afghanistan; a bottomless mire, easy to get into & near impossible to extract from once there.

    It is clear to me it is either the end of Waitangi or the end of NZ. Yet the establishment is so committed to this fatally flawed document, it may destroy the whole of NZ in order to preserve it. Yet once NZ destroyed there is no Treaty of Waitangi to uphold anyway; which is the stupidest honoring of a treaty I have ever seen.

    Sincere regards,

    Ken Maynard

  34. Obviously you don’t have a viable argument, Heke, if you have to resort to such disgusting language. You sound as though you come from the gutter!!

  35. Heke: thank you so much for the compliment. Your every utterance is an advertisement for racial equality.

    Would you like to appear in one of my TV commercials?

    I banned you some time ago, but on second thoughts I can use your abuse as evidence.

    Warning: I’ll probably tire of it again soon.

  36. A true Judge does proper investigative analytical research, not abuse others Paul.

    How is your business doing after your little rant I wonder, NOT!

  37. An excellent article by Richard Prosser in the latest (Dec 2012/Jan 2013) Investigate (His/Hers) Magazine on Consigning the Treaty to History and hanging it up in a museum, and disbanding the Waitangi Tribunal. A must-read for everyone. If only it was in all the papers too.

    I haven’t been able to obtain a link. Perhaps it’s not available on-line at the moment.

  38. Morgan is a greedy grasping little greaser. I hope he is put in his place. His tribe shouldn’t have got anything and it is nothing short of fraud that they have.

  39. Yes, wow, Ironsides. However 2012 has passed with nothing untoward happening. There are some concerning facts in there but I’m a bit sceptical. Seems irrational about the black boxes even though they are there in all their glory for us to see. Imagine disposing of huge numbers of them.

    I think I will just worry about the present for the moment and try and get equality for this country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s